Posted on 04/30/2009 11:50:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yeah, I know. Said some similar things about Bush in 2000. But at least he was pro-life, pro-family, etc, and thank God we supported him over the idiot All Green Gore.
Said similar things about McCain in 2008. But when asked the question "when does human life begin?," and he unabashedly stated, "At conception, of course," I had to take notice. Then when he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I decided to support her. I voted for Sarah (and the white haired old geezer that came along with the package).
But Romney is a NO go. And I don't care who this socialist, abortionist, homosexualist, constitution trampling bastard picks for running mate. If Romney's in I'm out!
G.O.P., R.I.P!
Thank you!:)
At least you finally admit that ideals and principles don't matter to you, not that such is a surprise to those of us who have read your shilling for Romney these past couple of years....
I guess that's a start, it is the most honest thing you have posted in awhile...
Can somebunny translate that gibberish ?
I’ll never forget one of BarneyFrankturion’s fellow Slick Willard trolls who exclaimed that he didn’t care Slick Willard was a liberal. Might they be the same troll ?
That's one thing that Romney has in common with Obama. Another thing is in the words Romney speaks. Please review my post #420 above, which has quotes from about 18 minutes of Romney's CPAC speech.
Finding examples of Romney's philosophical contradictions and his huge reliance on gratuitous emptiness by looking at his words, either in speeches or Q&A interviews, is like shooting fish in a barrel.
LIKE OBAMA, Romney says he's all for one thing, using words that are music to conservatives' ears -- smaller government, free markets -- and then he proceeds to outline plans and "programs" that would accomplish the opposite. In that way, he is very much like Obama.
Many posters here tend to, understandably, assume that Romney would be "better" than Obama and even go so far as to think it's a no-brainer. I, however, have come to realize that Romney is and would be as bad as Obama in most ways -- look at his poor-loser, victims-of-"hate" sycophants as represented so richly here on FR, and look at the way he blatantly, like Obama, says one thing and proposes its opposite -- EXACTLY like Obama. But worse because he flies the Republican flag.
He should be stripped of the Republican flag; he is a menace and a danger to our nation and to the GOP.
Screw Mitt Romney and the Trojan horse he rode in on.
Arlen Specter with better hair, that’ funny.
Wish I had thought of that ;-)
Now you're only expressing half the story. We need a Paul Harvey to finish the rest.
What then emerged? (The Republican party.)
And what was at the foundational core of that fledgling party's social agenda? (why in 1856 they said they would take on the "twin relics of barbarism.")
And what were those "twin relics?" (slavery & polygamy)
And did they indeed take them on? (Yes)
And how many years did that take them? [Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation within a decade...even though the remnant of slavery lived on culturally; the feds finally got the Mormon church to cave in on polygamy 34 years later, even though mainstream lds polygamist unions continued into the early 1960s and additional (new) LDS plural unions continued at an approximate rate of 11-12 a year through 1910.]
And did the Republicans stop opposing polygamy en masse even when the LDS church formally caved in 1890? (No. When the Utah LDS voted in a polygamist Democratic would-be Congressman named B.H. Roberts in 1898, they sent two-dozen banners with 7 million signatures to congress, saying they didn't want Congress to seat Roberts, who took a third wife around 1894...AFTER the LDS manifesto. Congress then sent Roberts home).
And did Republican social leaders stop opposing the cultural remnant of slavery & racism? (No. Few people seem to realize that Martin Luther King was a Republican! And few people seem to realize that many early Mormons, upon Utah becoming a state, were Democrats precisely because of Republican opposition to polygamy)
So Wagglebee, what you call "self-destruction" was actually the door-opener for a new party to emerge and tackle the culture's greatest social issues of its day!
If you are a good person Finny and it was your butt they were kicking I would stand up for you!
People need to have courage of their conviction and not shrink away because some one strongly disagree.
I will repect the host but for now I will make my views known that I stand for good and I do not care what others think or try to do to me!
Right is right and I will stand before my maker someday knowing I did the right thing when the odds were against me.
Ridiculous, morality is what keeps the original Protestant America voting conservative and it is the key to winning Catholics and minorities. If people only cared about money then there would be more than 226,000 registered libertarians and prop 8 would not have passed in California.
Great post!
No, Rush mentions northeast liberalS, that’s PLURAL meaning MORE THAN ONE.
No help for her.
If that were true, but it isn't. I've debunked that claim umpteen times based on that erroneous article written by Frances Rice.
“At least you finally admit that ideals and principles don’t matter to you”
That’s not what I wrote. What I posted was a response to your comment that two candidates who were gone from the race by February due to general lack of support were somehow more popular than Mitt.
Hunter and Fred have great principles. Countless other people who were also not running for president in February of ‘08 have great principles as well.
Resty you really are too hard on yourself.
ejonesie22 said, “At least you finally admit that ideals and principles don’t matter to you”.
And you replied, “That’s not what I wrote.
You’re right. You wrote, “If a candidate can’t win, his positions don’t matter all that much as far as I’m concerned.”
So you said, “Principles don’t matter all that MUCH”. Not that they don’t matter at all to you.
See how we can all get along?
I know it is not what you wrote. But it is what you say not what you write that counts...
No vacation on planet Kolob for YOU!
Er ... People swore up and down that "anybody but Hillary" would dictate their vote, and indeed it DID dictate the approach to the primaries, when the focus was on finding that candidate who could "beat Hillary." As it turns out, Hillary's inevitability was an illusion, the candidate nominated on that basis was guaranteed to be weak, and as it turns out, we sure as heck DID get someone other than Hillary.
I used to believe in supporting whoever Republicans nominated. I have learned from that mistake, and plan to apply what I've learned. I wish more would do the same; your post referred to above, however, above indicates a GOP headed toward making the SAME MISTAKE that it did in 2008. Only instead of "anybody but Hillary," it's "anybody but Obama."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.